Seneca, On the Shortness of Life - Chapters 1-5 #376
Let's read Seneca together (Part 2)
Dear friends and supporters of Daily Philosophy,
Welcome back to our read-along project! We are reading Seneca’s On the Shortness of Life, one of the best-known Stoic classics. The previous week, I sent around an introduction to Seneca and his life, and we wanted to read Chapters 1-5 of the book. If you have not yet found your bearings, that’s fine. Here is the link you need to start reading:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_shortness_of_life
If you want to unsubscribe from this read-along only but keep receiving the regular newsletter, you can do so here:
https://dailyphilosophy.substack.com/account
If you ever change your mind, you can go to the same page and change your settings again.
And here is a link to the chat: https://dailyphilosophy.substack.com/chat
It’s a bit quiet over there, but I hope it will get more lively with time. We all need to adjust to the new format, and I don’t know what I’m doing either, so we will all explore this together! And many thanks and a shout-out to Dr Susan Matthias-Arnold, who was the first brave soul to engage with the chat.
Thanks for that and let’s go!
Chapter 1
If you missed the introduction to the author and the book, it is here:
In the first chapter, Seneca summarises what the whole book will be about. Essentially, one only needs to read this one chapter to know what Seneca wants to say. The rest of the book are examples and more detailed arguments, but all the essentials are already contained in these first 15 lines.
Paulinus the grain-master
The whole book is addressed to one Paulinus, a high Roman official from the family of Seneca’s wife, possibly her father. As an official, we can imagine that he was just the type of person Seneca criticises (or tries to save): eternally stressed and busy, letting his life slip through his fingers while engaged with endless unrewarding activities, responsible for solving problems that he has no real control over. Paulinus is said to have been responsible for Rome’s grain supply, and I imagine that one would have had even less control here than in other areas of public administration. The grain supply depends on so many factors that are out of one’s control, especially since the Romans imported much of their grain from far away lands, often beyond the sea:
A regular grain supply for Rome depended on good harvests elsewhere, an efficient system of transport, storage and distribution, and honest investors willing to underwrite the risks in return for a share. ... The economies of some provinces were almost entirely dependent on grain exports, paying tribute or taxes in kind, rather than coin. Rome had a particular interest in the social and political stability of such provinces, and their protection. ... By the late 200s BC, grain was being shipped to the city of Rome from the provinces of Sicily and Sardinia. In the second century BC, Gaius Gracchus settled 6,000 colonists to exploit the fertile lands of newly conquered Carthage, giving each about 25 hectares (62 acres) to grow grain. Carthage thus became a major contributor to the annona. ... In the first century BC, the three major sources of Roman wheat were Sardinia, Sicily, and the north African region, centered on the ancient city of Carthage, in present-day Tunisia. Sailing time one-way from Sicily to Rome's port of Ostia Antica was about four days. From Carthage sailing time was about nine days. With the incorporation of Egypt into the Roman Empire and the direct rule of the Emperor Augustus (27 BC–14 AD), Egypt became Rome's main source of grain. (Wikipedia)
The Romans had never been fond of the sea, and with one-way journeys of one to two weeks, facing storms, enemies, and pirates, in addition to possibly failing harvests, spoiled grain through bad storage or pests, theft, and a myriad other threats, I imagine that Paulinus’ life could not have been a very tranquil one. So Seneca probably felt that his wife’s father would be a good target for a lecture in the Stoic way of life.
The Stoic sciences
Seneca writes:
It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it has been given in sufficiently generous measure to allow the accomplishment of the very greatest things if the whole of it is well invested.
... and this sentence summarises the whole book. It also contains much of what the Stoic mindset is about more generally. For example, a Stoic would never complain about nature being wrong or unjust, about the gods having arranged the world in a suboptimal way that makes our human failings inevitable. And Seneca immediately makes sure to clarify that. Because the whole point of the Stoic approach to life is to block the outside world and its random events from influencing our peace of mind. We can achieve this by learning to distinguish the things over which we do have control (our mind) from those things over which we don’t have control (the world). And then to focus our efforts on controlling what we can control, while we learn to accept without emotion what we can’t change. The success of such a project is based on expanding the area of one’s control at the cost of the number of things we can’t control: it’s a zero-sum game. The more things I control, the fewer things control me.
So the Stoic sage will learn as much as possible about the world, in order to be able to predict its ways, in order to remove any surprise from whatever he may encounter. The Stoics studied three sciences:
Physics was all knowledge of the physical world; not only what we would today call “physics,” but also astronomy, the weather, the workings of the human body, medicine, and everything else that is somehow related to the sciences.
Ethics was the science of psychology and our mental states: what causes our desires and how we can control them. How our mind tricks us and how we can trick it back. How to act right, which virtues are important, and how we can achieve inner freedom and happiness.
Finally, Logic was the science of the right way of thinking. Not only “logic” in today’s narrow sense, but also what we would call Critical Thinking, the knowledge of fallacies, of good and bad arguments.
Each of them contributes in its own way to the sage’s ability to control their mind and to not be surprised at what the world throws at them.
Just as great and princely wealth is scattered in a moment when it comes into the hands of a bad owner, while wealth however limited, if it is entrusted to a good guardian, increases by use, so our life is amply long for him who orders it properly.
Seneca wants to make it very clear that it is solely our responsibility to get what we want out of life. It is not life’s fault if we fail, but our own. As with money: we would expect a good wealth manager to bring about a good result, no matter what the world does; while an inexperienced person may lose money through bad decisions even if the world does not put any obstacles in their way.
Chapter 2
This chapter begins with a list of wrong ways to live. People waste the time that has been given to them in a myriad of different ways:
Being possessed by an avarice that is insatiable;
or a devotion to useless tasks;
wine;
sloth;
ambition that always hangs upon the decision of others;
the greed of the trader;
a passion for war;
voluntary servitude in a thankless attendance upon the great;
busy in the pursuit of other men's fortune;
busy complaining of their own;
having no fixed aim, shifting and inconstant and dissatisfied, always making new plans;
lacking a fixed principle by which to direct their course.
As a result,
The part of life we really live is small. For all the rest of existence is not life, but merely time.
It’s interesting to read this list and try to imagine what is left. What could Seneca possibly recommend that he has not already mentioned as the wrong way to live? What does it mean to “really live?” — We can get a hint from the mention of “useless tasks,” which seems to imply that some other tasks might actually be meaningful. And if “lacking a fixed principle” for one’s life is wrong, then perhaps having one would be good. Therefore, we might assume that a good life is one that consists in completing meaningful (or useful) tasks by following fixed principles of conduct.
Vices beset us and surround us on every side, and they do not permit us to rise anew and lift up our eyes for the discernment of truth, but they keep us down when once they have overwhelmed us and we are chained to lust.
If vices are bad, then virtues must be good — but which virtues would Seneca approve of? — Note also the Platonic sentiment here, with the soul (or our eyes) rising up to see the truth (Plato was talking of a chariot that goes up to the world of perfect things), while below is only lust (for Plato it was a good horse pulling us up and a bad one pulling us down). The same idea we find later in St Paul (Galatians 5):
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love [agape]. ... 16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. ... 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Interestingly, St Paul wrote this at almost exactly the same time as Seneca wrote the book we’re reading. The epistle to the Galatians was written in the late 40s or early 50s AD, while The Shortness of Life was written in 49. And although Seneca was not a Christian, we can see here how similar ideas can spread in different communities when their time has come and audiences are receptive to them.
Let’s read on.
To how many are riches a burden! From how many do eloquence and the daily straining to display their powers draw forth blood! How many are pale from constant pleasures! To how many does the throng of clients that crowd about them leave no freedom!
Clients in ancient Rome were people who depended on you in some way — the more powerful you were, the more clients you had. The patron, of higher social class, would protect his clients and help them in various matters, and the clients would, in return, serve the patron when he needed them. How this worked changed in the details over time, but generally the more clients one had, the more important they were. And to show off one’s “throng of clients” was a display of wealth and power. So among the vices are the love of riches, the enjoyment of (too many) pleasures and the display of power through amassing great numbers of clients.
What is common to all these vices? According to Seneca, that one loses their own autonomy, their own ability to be “one’s own master.” Excessive love of money or pleasure makes these things be the masters of oneself. Serving another person, either as patron or client, grants some amount of control over one’s life to that person, and so on.
So it seems like Seneca is saying here that the Stoic sage can be recognised by the feature that he is himself the only one who controls his own actions and his own time. Control distinguishes the Stoic sage, the right-living man, from all those others whose lives are controlled by external factors: money, wine, sloth and so on.
But wait — is “sloth” really an external factor? And what if I, being fully in control, decide that I actually want to be lazy today? Am I not allowed to make this decision? But if this was the case, would then the whole Stoic system not be just another way of forcing me to do something that I don’t want to do? Wouldn’t it mean that I am, once again, controlled by something external? Not money or wine, but Stoic principles? And wouldn’t this be just another kind of servitude, a way to lose one’s life rather than live it properly and freely?
Seneca is not subjectivist about values, it seems. Not every decision I make about myself is a right decision, just because it is mine. There is objective value in some things and not in others, and our lives can be lived better when we align ourselves with these values; and worse if we don’t. Remember the talk about “meaningful” activities and “following principles”? We are not free to do whatever we want. What we want must be meaningful and principled in ways that are independent of our own will. And Seneca will later tell us what this means.
Chapter 3
In chapter 3, Seneca once again talks about lost time. Remember, the whole book is about how we misuse our time, and then complain that we don’t have enough of it.
Men do not suffer anyone to seize their estates, and they rush to stones and arms if there is even the slightest dispute about the limit of their lands, yet they allow others to trespass upon their life. ... No one is to be found who is willing to distribute his money, yet among how many does each one of us distribute his life!
So we constantly give our lives away — and this means our time. We allow others to make use of our time without keeping effective control over how much we give away and how much we have left.
He invites us to look back upon our lives and try to estimate:
How much of your time was taken up with a moneylender, how much with a mistress, how much with a patron, how much with a client, how much in wrangling with your wife, how much in punishing your slaves, how much in rushing about the city on social duties...
And many more such activities and obligations that have taken away valuable time from our lives. But now comes an interesting part. Seneca actually gives us a positive vision of how we should live our lives, rather than just telling us what the wrong way to go about them is. Here we go:
Look back in memory and consider when you ever had a fixed plan, how few days have passed as you had intended, when you were ever at your own disposal, when your face ever wore its natural expression, when your mind was ever unperturbed, what work you have achieved in so long a life...
(And then he immediately falls back into the negatives). But this seems to be his positive vision right here: a good life is one that follows a “fixed plan,” (he talked earlier about “fixed principles”). It consists in having one’s days go as one intended. In being at one’s own disposal. In having one’s face wear “it’s natural expression” and in one’s mind being unperturbed. And in achieving a good amount of work.
Now all these are a bit problematic as stated. For example, not every fixed plan is a good plan. Paulinus, the high grain official, presumably had lots of fixed plans in his life, but he was not the master of them. So the plan must not only be fixed, but also the expression of one’s free will. But this is still not enough. Because if I have the fixed plan to be lazy and spend my days drinking wine, Seneca would also not approve. And achieving a lot of work is just what he accused people earlier of striving to do — at the expense of their lives. There seem to be some contradictory ideas here: is Seneca himself confused about what he is advocating?
You squander time as if you drew from a full and abundant supply, though all the while that day which you bestow on some person or thing is perhaps your last. ... You will hear many men saying: "After my fiftieth year I shall retire into leisure, my sixtieth year shall release me from public duties." And what guarantee, pray, have you that your life will last longer?
This is a common trope in Stoic philosophy, the memento mori, or reminder of death. The Stoics believe that many of our irrational behaviours stem from the fact that we live as if we would go on living forever. If we realised that our lives are limited, and that sooner or later we will all be dead, then we would live more meaningful, more Stoic lives.
Chapter 4
You will see that the most powerful and highly placed men let drop remarks in which they long for leisure, acclaim it, and prefer it to all their blessings.
This chapter is about the emperor Augustus (63 BC—14 AD) as an example of how little worldly success is worth. Seneca thought very highly of the emperor, in whom he saw the model of a wise ruler. And, of course, in terms of power and accomplishment, the Roman Emperor represented the apex of what was possible for a human being to achieve. But still, even this almost divine being (Seneca sometimes calls him “deified,” that is, god-like), has no other wish than to be rid of his duties and his power and return to a life of leisure. I understand this to be the counter-argument to what many of us would say: I cannot rest or lead a philosophical life right now, because I lack the money, or the position, or the job security that would allow me to devote myself to a calmer, more thoughtful life. But, Seneca replies, with this attitude you will never find peace. Even the Emperor, the most powerful human around, could not rest and spent his life dreaming of a future in which he would be allowed to lead a quiet, fulfilling life. So if he couldn’t do it, you can be certain that just going forward will never bring you to a place that will allow you to lead the philosopher’s life. There is no amount of power or money of security that will free you. The only way out is not to play this game at all.
And so he longed for leisure, in the hope and thought of which he found relief for his labours. This was the prayer of one who was able to answer the prayers of mankind.
“Leisure” here does not mean sitting on the sofa and scrolling through Instagram. Seneca wrote a whole letter about Otium, his word for the concept. Otium is not idleness, but the good use of one’s free time to engage in activities that benefit humanity and that promote one’s own wisdom. The ideal life of a Stoic sage is not to retreat to some kind of private garden Eden and enjoy the quiet life away from the world. An Epicurean might find this tempting; but the Stoic sage will always feel the need to use whatever resources they have in order to improve the world for everyone else.
To repeat something I wrote in the chat:
The Stoics seem to have been fond of trying to convert others to Stoicism. If you know the way to happiness, it would be selfish and immoral to keep it to yourself. The Stoic sage does not only want to save themselves (like an Epicurean would perhaps do after retreating to the Garden), but they have a responsibility to improve the world for all others too. The whole point of the three Stoic "sciences," logic, ethics and physics seems to be that we gain control over the world with the aim to improve things for ourselves and others. This becomes very clear when reading Marcus Aurelius, but it must also have been on Seneca's mind, who was always writing teaching letters right and left, trying to educate people in the Stoic world-view. One of the theoretical underpinnings of this was the Stoic belief that we are all equal, not only in the eyes of God or the gods, but that we also should learn to see ourselves in the third person. If you lose a child, Epictetus says, you should realise that you wouldn't be upset if this was your neighbour's child. So you should learn to see your own child in the same way, as if it was another person's. And this applies to all your affairs. The third-person view of oneself is one of the secrets to Stoic ataraxia and happiness. And this directly justifies teaching others. If we're all equal, and if my concerns are equally important to me as yours, then your salvation also becomes my concern.
Chapter 5
Cicero, another famous Roman statesman, lawyer, philosopher, and writer, was heavily involved in political struggles throughout his life. As Seneca writes:
Marcus Cicero, long flung among men like Catiline and Clodius and Pompey and Crassus, some open enemies, others doubtful friends, as he is tossed to and fro along with the state and seeks to keep it from destruction...
Ironically, Seneca’s own life was not free of “being flung among” the powerful, and his own life ended tragically when he was “tossed to and fro” by his pupil, Nero. He must also have felt like being held “half a prisoner,” when he was exiled to Corsica for eight years.
But the point of the passage comes right at the end:
But, in very truth, never will the wise man resort to so lowly a term, never will he be half a prisoner — he who always possesses an undiminished and stable liberty, being free and his own master and towering over all others. For what can possibly be above him who is above Fortune?
Again, the basic Stoic idea is that we are not in control of the world, because the outside world is doing its thing controlled by physical laws that we cannot change. The universe’s state is determined by forces beyond our control. The wise man cannot change what happens, but they can change how that which happens affects their mind.
I always found the weather to be a good illustration of how this is supposed to work. Nobody can control the weather, even today. If it wants to rain, it will. Typhoons and winds and heatwaves will come and go, entirely ignoring our own, human preferences. We cannot possibly will a particular weather, or bring it about. But we must all still relate in some way to the weather events that materialise around us. We can be surprised by the rain and get wet and miserable. We can plan a garden party for a day of thunderstorms and see it fail. We can schedule a job interview that requires a long train journey on a day of floods that disrupt traffic. All these are mistakes we can make in relation to the weather. They will lead to us being unhappy, losing money, possibly losing a job, and so on.
What would the Stoic sage do? They would first inform and educate themselves about the weather. Study weather charts and predictions, and use their full knowledge of physics, ethics and logic to try and guess as precisely as possible what the weather on a particular day will be. And they will, of course, also allow for a mistake and not schedule, say, a job interview so that they need to complete the journey there under the assumption that everything will go well. They will allow for delays and perhaps leave a day earlier and sleep in a hotel at the place where the interview is taking place. They will do what is prudent so that they increase their chances of being successful. For the garden party, they will choose a day with good predicted weather, but also find a place that offers suitable cover. And so on.
The Stoic sage will not be indifferent to what happens, or indifferent to their own plans. They will do what they can to make their plans succeed and to provide value and good outcomes for others. But they will focus on what they can influence rather than vainly hoping that those things that they cannot influence will, by sheer luck, go well. The Stoic is a man prepared, he is informed and he anticipates the problems before they reach him.
But still, the world is never fully predictable. Instead of mere rain, the garden party can encounter a typhoon, an earthquake, or an attack by Russian missiles. There are always factors out of our control. So the last line of defence is for the Stoic sage to accept what they cannot change and to make peace with the universe. To tell themselves that their happiness does ultimately not depend on anything that is outside their own mind. Happiness is a state of mind, not a state of the world.
We more commonly see this in reverse, when we observe people who are in a state of depression. Seen from the outside, the depressed person may seem trapped in a situation that they make worse in their own minds, compared to how it actually is. Were it not for the depression itself, the depressed person could go out and change whatever situation it is that depresses them. But they cannot see that. They are unable to take control and steer their mood into a positive direction, although we can see, from the outside, how this could be achieved. The same is true, the Stoic would say, with happiness. Happiness is always achievable if we only learn to control our mind in a way that keeps our thoughts constructive, our actions virtuous, and our emotions in check.
Such a person is, Seneca says, “above Fortune,” because nothing that can possibly happen can disturb their peace of mind:
For what can possibly be above him who is above Fortune?
Nothing, Seneca says.
And with this, we have come to the end of the first five chapters of On the Shortness of Life. Sorry that this turned out so long, but we needed to understand a bit about Seneca’s Stoic background in order to understand what he is arguing for in this book. The next instalments will be a lot shorter and more to the point, I hope.
So for next week, let’s read chapters 6-10 from the text, which you can find here:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_shortness_of_life
And don’t forget that we can always discuss any questions in the chat:
Thanks and see you next time!